Appraisal of Archival Materials: An Annotated Bibliographybwp27/eport/docs/BP_Bibliography1.pdf · could especially benefit from a macro-appraisal approach, given the complex nature

Peterson 1

Appraisal of Archival Materials:

An Annotated Bibliography

Brice Peterson

INFO 522: Information Access & Resources

20 March 2013

Peterson 2

Introduction and Scope

The following bibliography covers recent trends in the appraisal of archival materials.

The articles presented here, published from 1990-2012, examine developments in both the theory

and methodology of archival appraisal, based especially on the American and Canadian models

of documentation strategy and macro-appraisal, respectively. Though multiple articles provide

overviews of earlier foundational scholarship on archival appraisal, the majority of these sources

explore the various benefits and detriments of such new appraisal models, developed in response

to a number of contemporary issues in archival science that have arisen since the 1980s,

including the expansive proliferation of government records, electronic records, and social

history. One article on the appraisal of architectural records is included to demonstrate how the

macro-appraisal model can be applied to very specific manuscript collection types in addition to

the general universe of textual records. Additionally, several articles examine particular cases in

which documentation strategy and macro-appraisal have been employed in recent years. Articles

have been published in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and the

Netherlands.

Description

Appraisal is the process by which archivists assess the value of records and schedule their

disposition. Historically, appraisal is a relatively new concept. Through the early 20th century,

records were created in small enough amounts that archives could conceivably acquire and

preserve everything. Manuscript collections—archives that collect private papers or records

related to specific topics—would acquire whatever was left to them by posterity. Institutional

archives—those that house the records of their own institution or government—would likewise

attempt to preserve whatever was available to them. After World War II, the proliferation of

Peterson 3

records, especially government records, required archivists to put greater emphasis on

determining the value of the records they acquire, since they could not effectively manage the

huge masses of records now being created. As the 20th century progressed, new concerns over

the documentation of underrepresented groups and the instability of electronic records prompted

archivists to develop progressive approaches to appraisal. Macro-appraisal and documentation

strategy are two such newer appraisal methods which stress a top-down approach, requiring

archivists to first prioritize institutional functions and societal concerns and then categorize and

assign value to records based on these functional analyses. These fairly new, often controversial

approaches, implemented to various degrees over the past twenty years, form the basis of the

literature presented here.

Summary of Findings

New approaches to archival appraisal, like macro-appraisal and documentation strategy,

evolved in the course of an ongoing professional debate that started in the 1980s about the

evolving nature of contemporary records. As archivists observed, institutions were creating too

many records for archives to appraise appropriately. Archives, increasingly facing huge backlogs

of unprocessed materials, could not afford to keep acquiring whatever they were given. Yet, they

also could no longer undertake intensive, time-consuming evaluations of collections from the

bottom up to determine their archival value. Issues like social history, fluid administrative

hierarchies, digital and non-textual record formats, and lack of resources have also complicated

archivists’ appraisal methods. While new strategies have developed to meet these needs, they

have met with a fair amount of criticism.

Much of the literature on appraisal in the past twenty years has concerned the merits of

these new appraisal strategies, usually based on the authors’ interpretations of existing archival

Peterson 4

scholarship. Some, like Cox (1994), have attempted to reconcile new approaches in appraisal

methodology with existing, accepted archival principles. Others, like Cook (1995), argue instead

that each new appraisal method developed since the beginning of the 20th century has involved

some degree of rebellion against former methods, noting especially how in the 1950s, Theodore

Schellenberg’s emphasis on evidential and informational value in appraisal was a direct rebuttal

of Hilary Jenkinson’s long-accepted assertion that appraisal decisions should be made

exclusively by records creators and not at all by archivists. Yet, other contemporary scholars,

like Duranti (1994), continue to follow Jenkinson’s line of reasoning and assert that any

assigning of value to records through appraisal is fundamentally at odds with core archival

concepts of authenticity and accountability. Cook’s 2004 article, written well over a decade after

his macro-appraisal strategy was implemented at the National Archives of Canada, is in many

ways still defending the soundness of his method. This vigorous professional debate

demonstrates that, even as these new appraisal methods mature in practice, there is still no

general consensus on their usefulness or compatibility with basic archival theory.

This ongoing professional debate has also incorporated concepts, like social history and

post-modernism, imported from other fields. Lockwood (1990) examines the impact of social

history on the appraisal practices of the National Archives and Records Administration, arguing

in favor of more comprehensive policies reacting to this historical research trend. Such

sensitivity to historical trends is exactly the kind of reliance on Schellenbergian appraisal

methods that Cook (1995) so vehemently argues against when he asserts how basing appraisal

value on research use results in uneven collecting policies and fluid standards. Nevertheless,

Lockwood’s argument is picked up years later by Van Wingen and Bass (2008), who instead

investigate how documentation strategy—an appraisal method which, like macro-appraisal, is

based on institutional functional analysis—can actually better address social history issues than

Peterson 5

traditional appraisal methods. Meanwhile, Brown (1995) argues for a hermeneutic approach to

functional analysis, developed from an understanding of post-modernism. He insists that the

close reading of records texts will better equip macro-appraisal programs to identify those

institutional and societal functions that document underrepresented groups.

Scholars have also attempted to address the ever-changing nature of contemporary

records, especially as records are increasingly created in multi-layered institutional contexts and

in various unstable electronic formats. Cook (1996) points to the field of architecture as one that

could especially benefit from a macro-appraisal approach, given the complex nature of

architectural records and the lack of a general consensus on the actual nature of architecture and

its role in society. He argues that macro-appraisal can allow archivists to identify the most

important functions of architecture without getting bogged down in the inconsistencies and

complexities of architectural theory. Dixon (2005) examines how Canada’s macro-appraisal

approach to government records has largely ignored case files, which are the largest single body

of records created by the Canadian government. Her reliance on Schellenbergian micro-appraisal

strategies, such as identifying important informational and evidential value in individual records,

suggests that a successful overall approach to contemporary archival appraisal may require the

blending of both old and new methods together. Finally, Harvey and Thompson (2010) examine

the criteria necessary to create an automated system of archival appraisal, concluding that at this

stage, automation would only be possible as a tool in ensuring electronic records exist in stable

formats. It remains unclear how such electronic automation could become a macro-appraisal tool

in the future.

While much has been written about appraisal in recent decades, it appears that more work

remains toward building a strong professional consensus on the effectiveness of macro-appraisal

and documentation strategy. A number of archivists have critically examined the implementation

Peterson 6

of macro-appraisal and documentation strategy approaches in their own institutions—including

Bailey (1997) regarding macro-appraisal at the National Archives of Canada, Cunningham and

Oswald (2005) on macro-appraisal at the National Archives of Australia, Loewen (2005) on

accountability changes to the Canadian macro-appraisal model, Robyns and Woolman (2011) on

institutional functional analysis at Northern Michigan University, and Williams (2012) on a

documentation strategy for the London 2012 Olympic Games. However, there is a dearth of

empirical research being done on the matter of appraisal, and such research may be the only way

for the professional community to come to any real understanding of how these new models have

actually improved appraisal, if at all. Craig (2008) presents the results of a postal survey of

Canadian archivists, which offers a good starting point. Her findings suggest that archivists are

largely preoccupied with other matters at their jobs, especially management, and that very few

archivists are employed exclusively in appraisal roles. That most archives do not have dedicated

appraisal staff suggests that perhaps the prolific debate over appraisal in scholarly literature has

not had a dramatic effect on archivists in practice. Nevertheless, more research needs to be done

to examine this and other possibilities. Though notions of archival value are particularly hard to

quantify, and therefore research on appraisal may prove difficult to conduct, enhancing

understanding of how appraisal works in practice can only serve to better develop and perfect the

various methodologies at archivists’ disposal.

Bibliography

Entry 1:

Bailey, C. (1997). From the top down: The practice of macro-appraisal. Archivaria, 43(1),

89-128.

Peterson 7

Abstract: “This article examines the application of the macro-appraisal model, which has

been practised at the National Archives of Canada since 1991. After a conceptual review

of the theory behind documentation strategy and the macro-appraisal model, the article

outlines the National Archives' ‘planned approach’ to the macro-appraisal of records of

the Canadian federal government. Through a detailed analysis of four appraisals in the

field of health and social welfare, a number of strengths and weaknesses of the macro-

appraisal model are discussed.”

Annotation: The author evaluates Terry Cook’s macro-appraisal model as implemented

by the National Archives of Canada, offering an introduction of the model’s theoretical

basis in contrast with documentation strategy and an examination of the model at work in

four different government agencies. While the author provides more depth of study to the

model’s successes (as shown in the examples), the article makes a valuable distinction

between appraisal and acquisition, suggesting that macro-appraisal may not answer

complex acquisition decisions related to traditional concerns like authenticity and

preservation needs.

Search Strategy: I knew LISTA should contain articles relevant to my search, so I

consulted the database’s thesaurus via EBSCOhost for subject terms relating to archival

appraisal and found “APPRAISAL of archival materials.” I found this article after

searching using this term.

Database: Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) [EBSCOhost]

Method of Searching: Controlled Vocabulary

Search String: ss DE “APPRAISAL of archival materials”

Peterson 8

Scholarly/Refereed Status: The Association of Canadian Archivists publishes

Archivaria. Ulrich’s lists it as a scholarly journal and as refereed. Additionally, I found

this article by refining my EBSCOhost results to “Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals.”

Entry 2:

Brown, R. (1995). Macro-appraisal theory and the context of the public records creator.

Archivaria, 40(1), 121-172.

Abstract: “This essay is about the context of the public records creator and its conceptual

relation to the appraisal of public records. Its primary purpose is to suggest an alternative

way for archivists to understand, interpret, and represent institutional creator context in

support of intellectual processes and practical methods leading to the identification of

records for archival preservation.”

Annotation: The article presents an argument in favor of hermeneutics as a valuable way

of assessing the institutional context of a record’s creation instead of relying upon

existing bureaucratic and administrative constructs. This text-based approach to

institutional functional analysis should allow archivists greater insight into the

provenance, and therefore appraisal value, of records. While this article’s findings are too

often couched in complicated post-modern terminology, its recommendation to rely upon

archival reading of texts should be helpful to archivists looking to enact macro-appraisal

models while also respecting the issues of representation brought up by social history.

Additionally, the author gives some valuable insight on how a hermeneutic approach may

also affect archival arrangement and description of records.

Peterson 9

Search Strategy: Because Bailey’s 1997 article “From the Top Down: The Practice of

Macro-appraisal” offers a helpful overview of the macro-appraisal model, I thought that

following some of the sources cited in her footnotes would offer more in-depth

perspective on how the model developed.

Database: N/A

Method of Searching: Footnote chasing

Search String: Referenced in:

Bailey, C. (1997). From the top down: The practice of macro-

appraisal. Archivaria, 43(1), 89-128.


Archivaria. Ulrich’s lists it as a scholarly journal and as refereed.

Entry 3:

Cook, T. (1995). From the record to its context: The theory and practice of archival

appraisal since Jenkinson. South African Archives Journal, 37, 32-53.

Abstract: “Traditional appraisal approaches popularized by Jenkinson and Schellenberg,

and their many supporters, have serious shortcomings now that archivists are forced to

cope with the voluminous and fragile records of complex modern organizations. This

article analyses the history of appraisal thinking in this century, and concludes that there

has been a fundamental paradigm shift for archives (and archivists) from serving the state

to serving society, and from passively preserving the records judged to have value by the

state to actively collecting the records reflective of society - a true 'archives of the

Peterson 10

people.' The article also asserts that appraisal must in the first instance give way to

macro-appraisal. Ironically, the last thing the archivist does in appraising records for use

is to appraise records or consider use. Based on a model developed for the National

Archives of Canada, and implemented there since 1991, the macro-appraisal concept

focuses rather on appraising the key issues and trends in society and its key institutions,

and then in turn their mandates, functions, programmes, activities, and transactions.”

Annotation: This article first traces the development of archival theory from the 19th

century Dutch Manual, then to Hilary Jenkinson and to Theodore Schellenberg,

examining how these theoretical models have all ultimately been undermined by ongoing

changes in the nature of public records, especially in relation to the notion of public

accountability and the overabundance of contemporary records. The author then presents

the Canadian macro-appraisal model as one capable of providing an effective appraisal

methodology that respects archival traditions while also refusing to be bound by them.

Though the author does little to critically examine the success of macro-appraisal’s

implementation in Canada, he effectively defends model’s theoretical foundation against

some of the most common criticisms it faces from adherents of Jenkinson and

Schellenberg.








Peterson 11

Scholarly/Refereed Status: The South African Society of Archivists publishes the South

African Archives Journal, now called the Journal of the South African Society of

Archivists. The journal’s website describes it as scholarly and refereed. Additionally, I

found this article by refining my EBSCOhost results to “Scholarly (Peer Reviewed)

Journals.”

Entry 4:

Cook, T. (1996). Building an archives: Appraisal theory for architectural records.

American Archivist, 59(2), 136-143.

Abstract: “The appraisal of architectural records is complicated by the many existing

interpretations of the purpose and function of architecture: which buildings, which

architects, what other social, economic, and governmental influences, and which

interpretations of the architecture are to be documented? In dealing with these

questions—and with the massive growth rate of current records—the traditional approach

to appraisal based on present and future research value is of little use. Documentation

strategy is a relatively new approach to appraisal, and stresses a macro-appraisal and

selection of the functions, activities, and record creators that need to be documented for

posterity. The understanding of records in their overall context provided by macro-

appraisal will ensure a more complete documentary record, but will require archivists to

become actively involved in determining which records survive, not passively waiting to

appraise and select those records which find the way to archival repositories on their

own.”

Peterson 12

Annotation: The author once again recounts the merits of the macro-appraisal model he

developed for the appraisal and retention of records at the National Archives of Canada.

This time he frames his argument in the context of architectural records, which he

believes exhibit the kind of complex, multi-institutional provenance that renders

traditional models of archival appraisal untenable. In particular, he points to the lack of

consensus on the role of architecture in society and the ongoing debate about the exact

nature of architecture as reasons why macro-appraisal could help archivists better assess

the value of architectural records. Instead of passively accepting architectural records or

appraising them based on expectations of future research use, archivists should employ

macro-appraisal as a method to build comprehensive, if less voluminous, collections

based on functional analysis.

Search Strategy: Because other sources identified Terry Cook as one of the main

proponents and developers of macro-appraisal, I wanted to find other relevant articles of

his. I turned to Summon for this search, knowing that it searches a number of databases

that index both Archivaria and American Archivist, two of the main publications in which

Cook has written. I performed an author search for “Cook, Terry” and found this article.

Database: JSTOR [Summon]

Method of Searching: Author search

Search String: AuthorCombined:(Cook, Terry)

Scholarly/Refereed Status: The Society of American Archivists publishes American

Archivist. Ulrich’s also lists American Archivist as a scholarly journal and as refereed.

Additionally, I found this article by refining my search results on Summon to “articles

from scholarly publications, including peer-review.”

Peterson 13

Entry 5:

Cook, T. (2004). Macro-appraisal and functional analysis: Documenting governance rather

than government. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 25(1), 5-18.

Abstract: “Macro-appraisal encompasses a new theory, strategy and methodology for

doing appraisal, which was first adopted at the National Archives of Canada in the 1990s.

After a summary of the broader concept of macro-appraisal, this article explores the

‘functional analysis’ that is the theoretical and methodological core of macro-appraisal.

The argument suggests that archivists in appraisal should focus on issues of governance,

thus going beyond trying to understand (and document) what a government (or other

institution) does. It seeks thereby to put the ‘citizen’ back in the citizen–state

relationship—and among the archival records identified through macro-appraisal for

long-term archival preservation.”

Annotation: This article, written over a decade after the official implementation of a

macro-appraisal methodology at the National Archives of Canada, examines how macro-

appraisal, while based on institutional functional analysis, is not merely determined by

administrative and bureaucratic organization. The author recounts ten main principles

behind macro-appraisal as well as five core steps in its application and twelve criteria to

use during functional analysis. This kind of methodological specificity provides a

welcome retrospective of the model’s use in Canada, attempting to demonstrate how the

model is still useful, appropriate, and effective after so many years. The article is written

with particular concern for the role of post-modernism in examining archives’ need to

document underrepresented groups rather than simply structures of power.

Peterson 14

Search Strategy: Cunningham and Oswald’s article “Some Functions are More Equal

than Others…” describes the implementation of a macro-appraisal model in Australia. In

their article, they cite a number of sources fundamental to the ongoing development of

the model, including this article by Cook.

Database: N/A

Method of Searching: Footnote chasing

Search String: Referenced in:

Cunningham, A., & Oswald, R. (2005). Some functions are more

equal than others: The development of a macroappraisal strategy

for the national archives of Australia. Archival Science, 5(2-4),

163-184. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9011-1

Scholarly/Refereed Status: Springer Netherlands publishes Archival Science. Its

website describes the journal as an “independent, international, peer-reviewed journal on

archival science.” Ulrich’s lists it as a scholarly journal and as refereed.

Entry 6:

Cox, R. (1994). The documentation strategy and archival appraisal principles: A different

perspective. Archivaria, 38(1), 11-36.

Abstract: “North American archivists have recently witnessed an upsurge in writings

about appraisal theory. This essay takes a different approach to this topic. It attempts to

describe a set of basic principles, derived from the archival literature, that relate to the

practice of appraising records. These principles bridge the gap between theory and

practice, but they represent-in the author's view-something more than just methodology.

Peterson 15

The essay also seeks to relate the decade-old discussion to the archival documentation

strategy, showing how the strategy both emanates from such principles and is consistent

with them.”

Annotation: The author describes the ongoing intellectual debate in the archives

community between adherents to traditional appraisal methodologies and proponents of

new models such as macro-appraisal and documentation strategy, concluding on a set of

twelve principles of archival appraisal that are common to both sides of the debate and

well-grounded in archival theory. These well-documented principles offer a clear picture

of the state of archival appraisal, pointing to some of the most challenging contemporary

issues that the documentation strategy and macro-appraisal models hope to address.

Though this article initially presents itself as a tool for creating more professional

understanding and agreement, it ultimately argues in favor of the American

documentation strategy model as one firmly in line with the most essential principles of

archival appraisal theory.

Search Strategy: Documentation strategy, alongside macro-appraisal, is one of the most

popular recent models proposed for the appraisal of archival materials. I wanted to find

some sources that provided an overview of this concept, so I decided to search Summon,

which pulls from databases that index Archivaria, American Archivist, and other leading

scholarly archival publications. I found this article in the results for my keyword search

of archives AND “documentation strategy”.

Database: Miscellaneous E-Journals [Summon]

Method of Searching: Keyword search

Search String: ss archives AND “documentation strategy”

Peterson 16



this article by refining my search results on Summon to “articles from scholarly

publications, including peer-review.”

Entry 7:

Craig, B. (2008). Doing archival appraisal in Canada. Results from a postal survey of

practitioners' experience, practices, and opinions. Archivaria, 64(1), 1-45.

Abstract: “This paper reports results of a self-administered postal survey of 450

Canadian archivists undertaken between 2003 and 2005. The survey of fifty-eight

questions gathered information specifically about appraisal as a work process: how it is

done by archivists in Canadian repositories; what resources they use; what problems and

issues they have encountered; and in the light of experience, what tools, skills, and

knowledge have proven to be important in doing this task. The paper reports the

frequencies for eight sections of the survey. It situates the 313 responses (response rate of

70%) within their overall experience, institutional affiliation, and basic demogra-phy.

The paper also discusses respondents’ opinions on the knowledge, education, and training

needed to do appraisal, and assesses the sources for information they use and find useful.

After reporting on the respondents’ approach to the task and the methods they use, the

paper looks at the problems encountered in doing appraisal and discusses the ideas that

archivists have about their accountability for decisions. Further analysis of data from the

survey is proposed as the companion to the next phase of research on appraisal,

interviewing archivists to explore ideas and issues in depth.”

Peterson 17

Annotation: The author points to the remarkable surge in scholarly writings on appraisal

in the archives community but recognizes that little of this writing has involved empirical

research into the behaviors and opinions of archivists doing actual appraisal work. The

findings of the author’s own study suggest that archivists mostly see management as their

primary task and very few archivists are exclusively engaged in appraisal work, even

though a great majority are involved in appraisal in some way. The survey results also

suggest that archivists see on-the-job training and a developed instinctual sense of value

as more important to appraisal work than a deep understanding of scholarly literature.

While the article does not offer any major conclusions about the state of archival

appraisal work, it provides a helpful starting point and indicates that further empirical

research on appraisal is much needed.










this article by refining my EBSCOhost results to “Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals.”

Entry 8:

Cunningham, A., & Oswald, R. (2005). Some functions are more equal than others: The

Peterson 18

development of a macroappraisal strategy for the national archives of Australia.

Archival Science, 5(2-4), 163-184. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9011-1

Abstract: “In 1999-2000 the National Archives of Australia (NAA) adopted a functions-

based approach to appraisal. Since that time functional appraisal projects have for the

most part been conducted in cooperation with individual agencies. What has been

missing is a broad whole-of-government or macroappraisal framework which might assist

with the strategic prioritisation of projects, the allocation of resources and the

identification of high-value functions, activities and record classes. This article describes

a project commenced by the NAA during 2003-2004 to research and develop a functions-

based macroappraisal framework for current and prospective appraisal and for

retrospective application to records of the past 30 years of the Australian Government.

The article compares the Australian approach with macroappraisal strategies pursued in

Canada, the Netherlands and South Africa.”

Annotation: The article provides an in-depth examination of the implementation of a

macro-appraisal strategy at the National Archives of Australia, drawing from macro-

appraisal models already implemented in Canada and the Netherlands. The authors

critically examine Australia’s agency-based functional approach and point to specific

successes and failures of Australian and other national appraisal methods as lessons

learned in the implementation of a new government-wide macro-appraisal strategy. Such

critical evaluation of actual programs is sorely missing from much of the contemporary

literature on new function-based appraisal methods. The Australian program ultimately

elects for a strategy based on more specific value principles than the Canadian model.

Peterson 19

The authors content that Library and Archives Canada has failed to sufficiently explain

how it assigns value to different government functions, resulting in lack of consistency.

Search Strategy: I wanted to search ProQuest’s suite of databases for more sources on

archival appraisal, specifically the concept of macro-appraisal, so I performed a keyword

search in ERIC, LISA, and ProQuest Library Science for archives AND appraisal AND

(macroappraisal OR “macro-appraisal”).

Database: ProQuest Library Science [ProQuest]


Search String: ss archives AND appraisal AND (macroappraisal OR “macro-appraisal”)




Entry 9:

Dixon, M. J. (2005). Beyond sampling: Returning to macroappraisal for the appraisal and

selection of case files. Archival Science, 5(2-4), 285-313. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9017-8

Abstract: “Case files are voluminous and present challenges to archivists, government

departments, and other institutions that are charged with the responsibility of managing

these records either throughout or at various stages of their life cycle. To date, archivists

and records administrators, both in Canada and worldwide, have recognized the case file

challenge and are rethinking solutions for dealing with this persistent problem. This

article argues that by building on our cumulative knowledge acquired through years of

Peterson 20

applying macroappraisal and functional analysis to the appraisal of government records,

and staking out a modern definition of 'case file records' based on their transactional

characteristics, we indeed do have the skills and the expertise to tackle the problem and

develop a new solution for case file records. Rather than taking a piecemeal approach or

relying on sampling techniques, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Case Files

Appraisal Working Group (CFAWG) demonstrates how to consistently make keep-

destroy appraisal decisions for the disposition of operational case file records.”

Annotation: The author acknowledges that most macro-appraisal strategies, including

the model used in Canada, have largely ignored the issue of appraising case files, by far

the largest body of government records. The article examines how the CFAWG

established a new working definition of “case file,” allowing them to more specifically

identify such files. This provided a foundation on which CFAWG developed seven

principles used to determine whether such files can be considered of archival quality.

Though the author is writing in the context of the Canadian macro-appraisal strategy, the

principles she describes are clearly based in the traditional Schellenbergian micro-

appraisal model. This suggests that often the two strategies must exist in tandem and are

not always necessarily opposed.








Peterson 21




Entry 10:

Duranti, L. (1994). The concept of appraisal and archival theory. American Archivist, 57(2),

328-344.

Abstract: “In the last decade, appraisal has become one of the central topics of archival

literature. However, the approach to appraisal issues has been primarily methodological

and practical. This article discusses the theoretical implications of appraisal as attribution

of value to archives, and it bases its argument on the nature of archival material as

defined by traditional archival theory.”

Annotation: The author presents a Jenkinsonian view of archival appraisal, based in

traditional notions of objectivity and public accountability. Though the article

acknowledges the limits imposed by the abundance of modern records, it asserts that

archivists cannot at once select certain records for retention (thereby assigning value to

them) and at the same time uphold traditional notions of impartiality and authenticity.

This argument is well founded in archival history dating back to Ancient Rome. The

author asserts that North American archivists have largely ignored this historical

development of archival theory in favor of exploring new methods of appraisal,

suggesting that modern appraisal theory might be incompatible altogether with archival

theory. Though this line of reasoning is well argued, the author offers no practical

Peterson 22

solutions for addressing the actual problems such North American methodological

approaches aim to fix.

Search Strategy: I wanted to search Web of Science’s SSCI for articles that more

generally examined the role of appraisal in archival theory. My hope was that the most

seminal articles on this topic would also be among the most referenced on Web of

Science. A search for archives AND appraisal on SSCI led me to this article.

Database: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) [Web of Science]


Search String: ss archives AND appraisal



Entry 11:

Harvey, R., & Thompson, D. (2010). Automating the appraisal of digital materials. Library

Hi Tech, 28(2), 313- 322. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378831011047703

Abstract: “This paper aims to investigate the requirements for automating aspects of the

appraisal process for digital objects. It explores these requirements in the context of

automating re-appraisal and questions many of the assumptions commonly made about

appraisal and about automating the processes needed for life-cycle management of digital

objects. The literature of digital preservation and curation and the experience of one of

the authors in planning to implement a digital archive at the Wellcome Library are the

basis of an exploration of issues. The development of automated appraisal systems and

associated tools is a worthwhile endeavour, although the complexity and cost associated

Peterson 23

with designing, developing and implementing them may be prohibitive in some

situations. An automated appraisal system may, however, have only limited benefits in

some contexts. The re-appraisal of technical attributes of digital materials, which is an

essential part of their management, is a prime contender for some level of automation.

The approach proposed has limitations which arise from such factors as metadata

requirements and trustworthiness. The paper articulates assumptions made about

automation and applies these in order to gain a better understanding of the requirements

of automating aspects of appraisal in a digital archive.”

Annotation: This article examines the possibility of automating one or more aspects of

the archival appraisal of electronic records, concluding that the only feasible aspect of

appraisal that could be automated is the routine upgrading of electronic formats. Because

electronic documents exist in formats that may be unstable, such automation would

regularly re-appraise electronic records to ensure that their current format is stable and, if

not, perform the necessary format upgrade. This kind of technical appraisal would need

to remain separate from the regular initial appraisal duties that archivists perform in

person. It remains unclear how such a separation would withstand macro-appraisal

strategies or if archivists could successfully identify institutional functions suitable for

automatic re-appraisal, beyond the specific format of electronic records.







Peterson 24


Scholarly/Refereed Status: Emerald Group (UK) publishes Library Hi Tech. Ulrich’s

lists this publication as a scholarly journal and as refereed. Additionally, its website

describes the journal as “a quarterly, peer reviewed, scholarly journal on computing and

technology for library scientists.”

Entry 12:

Lockwood, E. (1990). "Imponderable matters:" The influence of new trends in history on

appraisal at the National Archives. American Archivist, 53(3), 394-405.

Abstract: “The field of history has changed a great deal since Theodore Schellenberg

wrote The Appraisal of Modern Public Records in 1956. Although trends in social

history, Afro-American history, and women's history have suggested new subjects,

themes, and periodization for historians during the last twenty years, archivists at the

National Archives and Records Administration continue to rely primarily on

Schellenberg's guidance in their appraisal of the records of the federal government. The

author investigates the criteria used in making appraisal decisions at NARA, looks at

some examples of appraisals that considered the new trends in history to greater and

lesser extents, and concludes that NARA must take a proactive position on this issue to

ensure that tomorrow's archival collection is a well-considered and useful one.”

Annotation: This article evaluates NARA’s piecemeal incorporation of trends in social

history into its appraisal procedures. Because NARA maintains no single, comprehensive

appraisal policy, most of the appraisal work rests on the judgment of individual

archivists. This suggests that social history considerations may not be made for all

Peterson 25

records acquired and raises important questions about how effectively NARA is retaining

records related to underrepresented groups. The article also brings up the concern that

relying too heavily on trends in history may cause archives to collect records in an

uneven way that fails to emphasize their enduring value, though relying on

historiography, as the author suggests, may only exacerbate such a problem.










Entry 13:

Loewen, C. (2005). Accounting for macroappraisal at Library and Archives Canada: From

disposition to acquisition and accessibility. Archival Science, 5(2-4), 239-259. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9015- x

Abstract: “This article explains the re-engineering of the government records disposition

program at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) in 2002-2004. The main point is that the

framework of accountability has grown since the launch of the macroappraisal program

(often referred to as the planned approach to disposition) at the (former) National

Peterson 26

Archives of Canada (NA) in 1990-1991. The opportunity for building an expanded

framework of accountability presented itself after 2000 when a number of "push"

(internal to the disposition program) and "pull" (external to the program) factors

coalesced to challenge a reduced program. The re-engineering exercise involved LAC

government records archivists working together to develop the following new program

documentation: Government-Wide Plan (GWP); Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU); Appraisal Checklist; Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival

Records; Briefing Note for the Librarian and Archivist of Canada; and the Multi-

Institutional Disposition Authority (MIDA) for Operational Case Files. Significant work

also went into creating version three of the Records Disposition Authorities Control

System (RDACS).”

Annotation: This article provides another much-needed critical evaluation of a specific

national appraisal program. In this case, the author examines how Library and Archives

Canada restructured its macro-appraisal program in the early 2000s following an

embarrassing Inspector General report that pointed out several fatal flaws in the

Archives’ existing macro-appraisal program. The author points to the ongoing evolution

of the notion of public accountability as one of the main reasons why LAC needed to

develop more considered policies to ensure the actual transfer of records from individual

agencies to LAC. These revised policies include a clearer list of principles used in

determining the value of various government functions aimed toward creating a generally

more robust framework of accountability. The policies outlined in this article point out

helpful next steps in the actualization of macro-appraisal principles in specific settings.



Peterson 27









Entry 14:

Robyns, M. C., & Woolman, J. (2011). Institutional functional analysis at Northern

Michigan University: A new process of appraisal and arrangement of archival

records. American Archivist, 74(1), 241-256.

Abstract: “The identification of recorded information with continuing value that

documents corporate and cultural memory is one of the archivist’s primary tasks, and

they accomplish this mission, in part, through the process of appraisal. But with options

as diverse as documentation strategies, black boxes, functional analysis, macro-appraisal,

and Theodore Schellenberg’s evidential and informational values, how does the “lone

arranger” in an institution of higher education settle on an appropriate course of action?

The Central Upper Peninsula and Northern Michigan University Archives faced this

decision when reconfiguring its process of appraisal and arrangement of archival records.

This article details how the archives adapted elements of Helen Samuels’s concept of

Peterson 28

institutional functional analysis and Terry Cook’s macro-appraisal into a model tailored

for use in university and college archives with limited financial and human resources.”

Annotation: This article, examining the implementation of an appraisal scheme based on

institutional functional analysis, points out the continued relevance of such a model over

twenty years after archivists first explored its theoretical foundations. Importantly, the

authors also use institutional functional analysis to remodel their archives’ arrangement

and description system, suggesting that such a strategy may be applicable beyond just the

realm of archival appraisal. The article also helpfully explores methods by which

resource-poor archives and those with single “lone-arranger” archivists can successfully

implement a macro-appraisal or documentation strategy approach to appraisal.

Search Strategy: Macro-appraisal is one of the most popular recent models proposed for

the appraisal of archival materials. I wanted to find some sources that provided an

overview of this concept, so I decided to search Summon, which pulls from databases

that index Archivaria, American Archivist, and other leading scholarly archival

publications. I found this article in the results for my keyword search of archives AND

“macro-appraisal”.

Database: JSTOR [Summon]


Search String: ss archives AND “macro-appraisal”





Peterson 29

Entry 15:

Van Wingen, M., & Bass, A. (2008). Reappraising archival practice in light of the new

social history. Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 575-585. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07378830810920905

Abstract: “This paper aims to explore the relationship between historiography and

archival practices. It takes the new social history approach to history as a case study for

examining how historians' changing theories and methods may affect solicitation,

acquisition, appraisal, arrangement, description, reference, outreach, and other aspects of

archival administration. The paper presents a review of the archival and historical

literature since the late 1970s. The paper finds that many aspects of archival

administration have been and continue to be affected by the new social history trend in

historical scholarship. The paper suggests that archivists and archival educators be trained

in historiography as a way to understand historians' craft and develop strong

documentation strategies to anticipate future archival needs. The paper includes

implications for the development of archival administration and education strategies. The

paper draws from a range of literature to consider the impact of scholarly practices on

professional archival work.”

Annotation: This article examines how the new social history of the late 1960s and

1970s has affected archival appraisal, and ways in which appraisal methods like

documentation strategy can effectively address social history issues without forcing

archival collecting policies to follow the mere whims of historical research trends. The

authors identify social history as one of the key factors in the effectiveness of macro-

appraisal and documentation strategy models, because such strategies, in looking beyond

Peterson 30

simple administrative organization, aim to better reflect the whole of a society’s or

organization’s functions. The article is a helpful reminder to archivists that no matter how

much archives try to resist following research trends in their appraisal decisions, archives

must also seek better awareness of their evolving role in the documentation and

legitimization of specific historical narratives.








Scholarly/Refereed Status: Emerald Group (UK) publishes Library Hi Tech. Ulrich’s

lists this publication as a scholarly journal and as refereed. Additionally, its website

describes the journal as “a quarterly, peer reviewed, scholarly journal on computing and

technology for library scientists.”

Entry 16:

Williams, C. (2012). On the record: Towards a documentation strategy. Journal of the

Society of Archivists, 33(1), 23-40. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2012.665316

Abstract: “Much debated in the 1970s and 1980s, documentation strategy has since been

variously tried and tested. This article reports on The Record, an initiative led by The

National Archives designed to ensure a documentary legacy of the London 2012 Olympic

Peterson 31

and Paralympic Games and the Cultural Olympiad. Without detailing the theory and

development of documentation strategy, the article provides an overview of The Record

which began as a collection strategy and since December 2008 has evolved into a

practical example of documentation strategy in its scope, its reach and its intentions. The

article makes no attempt to evaluate the success of The Record, as work continues to

communicate its objectives and to encourage participation that will extend beyond the

closing ceremonies. Neither does it provide a critique of documentation strategy nor of its

applicability for The Record. However, it does raise some of the questions that will need

to be answered to determine the success of the initiative in meeting its core objectives

and the appropriateness of having belatedly embraced documentation strategy as its

methodology.”

Annotation: This article provides a valuable lesson on the effective use of

documentation strategy in appraising the records of specific events or topics, given that

such topics often involve records created by multiple institutions. Because of the

immense nature of the London 2012 Olympic Games, this article may not be applicable

to many archives planning smaller documentation strategies, but it offers some necessary

insight into the complications that arise when archivists seek to forge multi-institutional

partnerships for the sake of developing an appraisal and acquisition plan. This article’s

detailed account once again highlights the ongoing usefulness of documentation strategy

in the context of contemporary records appraisal, though the scope of its particular

project may place it outside the realm of feasibility for most archives.

Search Strategy: Documentation strategy, alongside macro-appraisal, is one of the most

popular recent models proposed for the appraisal of archival materials. I wanted to find

some sources that provided an overview of this concept, so I decided to search Summon,

Peterson 32

which pulls from databases that index Archivaria, American Archivist, and other leading

scholarly archival publications. I found this article in the results for my keyword search

of archives AND “documentation strategy”.

Database: Miscellaneous E-Journals [Summon]


Search String: ss archives AND “documentation strategy”

Scholarly/Refereed Status: Routledge publishes the Journal of the Society of Archivists

(UK), currently called Archives and Records: The Journal of the Archives and Records

Association (UK). Ulrich’s lists this publication as a scholarly journal and as refereed.



Conclusion & Personal Statement

This assignment proved a helpful and rigorous demonstration of the various search tools

we have been examining throughout the term. While weekly assignments have provided helpful

introductions to the databases we studied, this final project more than anything else forced me to

fully absorb the search principles we have learned. Because I was tasked with delving deep into

scholarly literature on a topic of my own choosing, I was given a chance to embark on a “real-

life” search scenario, which required me to call upon the full arsenal of search tools presented in

this course. In many ways, this project was the ideal culmination of our work this semester,

because it demonstrated how these newly acquired search tools could be put to use on actual

research topics. It was also helpful to be motivated in this research by my own real interest in the

topic, and I am sure that the knowledge I acquired by conducting this research will be helpful to

my future studies in library and information science here at Drexel.

Peterson 33

Regarding my use of particular databases and search engines for this project, I found that

initially, I was being too reliant on ProQuest, which was the first database we learned about and

the one with which I feel the most comfort using. Early on, I spent a remarkable amount of time

searching ProQuest’s databases, often unsuccessfully, for articles related to my topic, when it

should have occurred to me sooner that more articles relevant to my topic could very well be

indexed elsewhere. It was a helpful reminder to me that sometimes, the failure of a search is not

based on the quality of the search itself but rather on the relevance of the database. When I began

to expand my search beyond ProQuest, searching services like Web of Science and EBSCOhost

and chasing footnotes in articles I had already found, the quality of my search results began to

dramatically increase. Because many of our weekly assignments involved searching for topics

that were known to be included in the given database, I needed to reset my expectations for this

final project and remind myself that database selection is key to a search’s success. For an

information professional, it is as important a tool as the search string itself. I am grateful that this

intensive assignment gave me a chance not only to learn more about a topic in archival science

that deeply interests me, but also to actualize—and grasp the significance of—all of what we

learned in INFO 522 this term. I know now that I am well equipped to handle such rigorous

research in the future.

Documents

Appraisal of Archival Materials: An Annotated Bibliographybwp27/eport/docs/BP_Bibliography1.pdf · could especially benefit from a macro-appraisal approach, given the complex nature